Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one.

He responded as follows:

Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.

As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the licence could be revoked.

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

​

 

[billd91]

So this feels much more like a (semi-) targetted attack at the big fish earning from WOTC's product like MCDM and Critical Roll, rather than the grand scope of truly 'anyone' trying to make money by using D&D (or its variants thereof).

Sure, but even targeted attacks can cause collateral damage. Is Griffin Macaulay one of the 20-odd entities targeted? Or is he collateral damage because his $15,000 Kickstarter campaign hit a windfall and raked in an amount 2 orders of magnitude greater than his target?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also, they did confirm that WOTC partners and other associates already having agreed-to terms (such as VTT hosts like Roll20 and FantasyGrounds), as well as retailers/sellers of merchandise, do not fall under the new OGL.

so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?

 

[mamba]

Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make above this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.

for now, WotC can change the terms at any time for any resason. I am sure the 50-750k range is for them to figure out how to squeeze everyone to within an inch of their lives

 

[billd91]

so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?

Maybe? I would expect their license arrangement remains separate - though the assault on OGL 1.0a publishers may reduce the variety of products they can offer support for. I assume they can sell full sets of WotC's adventures, complete with art and the full text, because of their direct license. Doing the same with other publishers probably means similar arrangements with them - and many of them produce some of their works thanks to the OGL. If they can't product and distribute content, they can't make it available on Roll20 and Roll20's versatility and convenience goes down.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let's be honest; a lot of the big boys are probably in talks with Hasbro right now and under NDAs.

 

[SteveC]

it was drafted by the in house counsel with my input and participation.

Ryan: I just wanted to say THANK YOU for doing something that resulted in hundreds if not thousands of hours of fun for me and my friends over the past 20 odd years. We played a lot of games that were made possible by the OGL. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, you really shook the pillars of heaven.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, as numerous sources stated, the threshold for this Royalty Fee only applies if you make 750k or more in a year. Of which there really are not a lot (less than 20 in total). And even then, the fee is only deducted from the money you make above this threshold, not in its entirity 'as soon as'. Anyone that makes between 50K and 750K in a year simply just needs to declare their profits, but not pay a fee.

Also, they did confirm that WOTC partners and other associates already having agreed-to terms (such as VTT hosts like Roll20 and FantasyGrounds), as well as retailers/sellers of merchandise, do not fall under the new OGL.

So this feels much more like a (semi-) targetted attack at the big fish earning from WOTC's product like MCDM and Critical Roll, rather than the grand scope of truly 'anyone' trying to make money by using D&D (or its variants thereof).

The leaked text as written also completely nukes the OGL ecosysten as a whole. It would basically void the existing OGL so no more OGC content can be created or republished using it while leaving only OneD&D content as possible. This means no more M&M, PF1, OSRIC, the open version of runequest, nothing. With a swipe everything OGL just ceases to exist.

 

[Knuffeldraak]

so based on what we know now Roll20 should remain the same?

Because Roll20 (same with Fantasy Grounds) got a D&D License, which means they got an agreement beyond the OGL already. So any change to the OGL, or a whole new OGL, doesn't matter, as these only apply if you 'don't' work with a settled agreement.

So to answer shortly; yes. It should.

 

[Knuffeldraak]

for now, WotC can change the terms at any time for any resason. I am sure the 50-750k range is for them to figure out how to squeeze everyone to within an inch of their lives

To be fair, that's just conjecture. There's no perceiveable way to "know" that. We only know that anyone that does make 50k-750k a year will need to provide transparancy on their revenue. Whatever ill intent non-officials think WOTC would have with this info, is simply doomspeak. Which doesn't help anyone except just create more drama.

Also; while they absolutely can change their terms, they cannot forcibly apply it to any prior (ie; grandfathered) agreements w/o settling for a new agreement, and they have always to provide these new terms on a timely manner. Hence why the royalties change is in effect no earlier than 2024.

Sure, but even targeted attacks can cause collateral damage. Is Griffin Macaulay one of the 20-odd entities targeted? Or is he collateral damage because his $15,000 Kickstarter campaign hit a windfall and raked in an amount 2 orders of magnitude greater than his target?

Are you referring to the Kickstarter that yielded 800k? (also, to be fair, despite this kickstarter his yearly revenue stands on a whopping 1.9 million as 5e Content Creator and illustrator). But then, yeah, this example is one of the things the new OGL would fall under. I believe this one was even named in specific.

Even then, explosions like this don't even incur less than you think. If you had a goal to raise 400k, and you earn 800k instead, you only pay 12.5k in royalties (25% of 50k). You still would raise a total of 788.5k. WOTC wouldn't even end up getting 2% of that. The emphasis is on that the threshold begins, and only then and there, at 750k. So even if you earn 750.001 dollars in a year, WOTC only ends up getting 25 cents

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.

Ambiguity favours the party who did NOT draft the contract.

Learned that on big bang theory, thanks to the lovely Priya.